The Manley Panel on Afghanistan

[observor 69]

We've been talking about this topic for a few hours now and nobody has mentioned Manley's famous comment on defence spending.  ;D

"Spending on defence and security
do not rate very highly in opinion
polls (and development aid even less
so). The results of such spending are
not very visible to most Canadians.
But we love to talk about sovereignty,
about how we punch above our weight
in the world. Well, it’s time to pay. As
I’ve said before, we can’t sit at the G8
table and when the waiter arrives with
the bill, excuse ourselves to go to the
washroom. We’ve been doing just that,
and trading in our Pearsonian reputation
rather than fulfilling the Pearsonian vision."

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may04/manley.pdf

Edit spelling "defence."  :-[

 

[wade.w]

I don't know anything about these people, I am sure they are as brilliant as everyone has stated.
I am also pretty fascinated at everyone applauding Harpers political move...
My own gut reaction is this, Harper (and company) wants us to stay in Afghanistan till we are told to go home, (which will be never because I am pessimistic like that.) this panel is going to arrange just that. (The Provers Prove what the Thinkers Think.) I am confident that we will be there far beyond 2009.
I am also not entirely sure how a business man is out for Canadians (our) best interest.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't know anything about these people ...

Here's a bit of info:

John Manley - http://www.nortel.com/corporate/exec/manley.html

Derek Burney - http://www.cdfai.org/fellows/derekburney.htm

Jake Epp - http://www.tyndale.ca/view.php?id=120

Paul Tellier - http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=clerk&Sub=FormerClerks&doc=FormerClerks1985-1992_e.htm

Pamela Wallin - http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/2007/03/post_34.html

 

[wade.w]

Here's a bit of info:

John Manley - http://www.nortel.com/corporate/exec/manley.html

Derek Burney - http://www.cdfai.org/fellows/derekburney.htm

Jake Epp - http://www.tyndale.ca/view.php?id=120

Paul Tellier - http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=clerk&Sub=FormerClerks&doc=FormerClerks1985-1992_e.htm

Pamela Wallin - http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/2007/03/post_34.html

Thank you.

I looked over them all, and the only person I really like and felt good about is Pamela Wallin.  I think she is the only one who is truly going into this with my best interests at heart.  Paul Tellier also seemed like a decent guy, although, I do not know any of the details regarding the positions he has held.

Manley and Burney evoke the word MONEY in my mind and it really makes me wonder if they have my best interest at heart.  Same with Epp,  The thing about Epp that irks me the most is the fact that he appears to be an evangelical christian.  I am scared to imagine what he thinks about (or how much he hates)  Moslems, and this alone really makes me question if he is clear headed enough to have my best interests at heart regarding our presence and actions in a Moslem country.

 

[GAP]

Jake Epp is Mennonite

 

[Kirkhill]

Wade:

I see that you are a recently joined member of the CF. Still waiting to get to St-Jean for BMQ.

I sincerely hope that you joined for a life of service and not for a bit of trades training.  Something about the tone of your posts suggests the latter.

While the welfare of soldiers is always a consideration "Men" fall behind "Mission" in the Mission-Men-Machine-Myself order of things.  When you joined you were putting yourself at the disposal of the Government of the Day who make decisions based on National Interest, not on your best interests.

These men and women have more than enough collective experience and worth to make a thorough appreciation of the situation and then come up with suitable, credible recommendations.  They are at least as credible as the nameless grey suits in the Civil Service.  And, like Caesar's Wife, they are seen.

In the meantime I hope your wait for St-Jean is not too long and that you enjoy your term of service when you get there.

Cheers.

 

[aesop081]

a Moslem country.

?

 

[wade.w]

?

  my mistake,

*the democratically elected government of Afghanistan...

Wade:

I see that you are a recently joined member of the CF. Still waiting to get to St-Jean for BMQ.

I sincerely hope that you joined for a life of service and not for a bit of trades training.  Something about the tone of your posts suggests the latter.

While the welfare of soldiers is always a consideration "Men" fall behind "Mission" in the Mission-Men-Machine-Myself order of things.  When you joined you were putting yourself at the disposal of the Government of the Day who make decisions based on National Interest, not on your best interests.

These men and women have more than enough collective experience and worth to make a thorough appreciation of the situation and then come up with suitable, credible recommendations.  They are at least as credible as the nameless grey suits in the Civil Service.  And, like Caesar's Wife, they are seen.

In the meantime I hope your wait for St-Jean is not too long and that you enjoy your term of service when you get there.

Cheers.

If I was interested in the trades training and not the service, I would have opted to get my trades training paid for at a college.
I was just sharing my opinion, I guess I should probably learn to keep my opinion to myself.  Also, sometimes I find it  difficult to gauge the tone of someone, and even the values of someone when expressed through a keyboard. 
I understand that soldiers are used for the national interests by the government of the day....  I was talking about the welfare of the Canadian people.  I was simply questioning if these people really do have our (Canadian citizens) best interest at heart...    and like I said, I have a good feeling about one maybe two of them.  Where as I think the other two could possibly have their priorities for big business (money over people) instead of the Canadian people, and the other guy simply scares me because I think he might consider his self a warrior for christ...  to some that might not seem like a bad thing, but to me it does because they believe in the end of the world.  I don't want it to be a self fulfilling prophecy... 

This is just how I feel.  My opinion isn't worth anything.
I signed up to serve my country and that is exactly what I plan on doing.  If I have to have the exact same opinion as every other serving member I will just keep my mouth shut. smile and nod...
next time I won't share my opinion.
i will just smile and nod. 

In conclusion I just shared my gut feeling on this topic, and my opinion on the people within the panel, something that wasn't broadcast on CBC.
(edit: I am also aware that my opinion is more likely then not, uninformed.  I don't claim to believe what I say is 100% fact. it is what it is, an opinion. take it for what it's worth.  I don't consider myself to be a completely informed person...I am not yet that sure of myself... *now I am thinking about the stance of people on the gay marriage issue... hahahaha )

 

[aesop081]

  my mistake,

*the democratically elected government of Afghanistan...

a Moslem country.

I was just wondering what a "moslem" country was

 

[Edward Campbell]

... I was talking about the welfare of the Canadian people.  I was simply questioning if these people really do have our (Canadian citizens) best interest at heart...    and like I said, I have a good feeling about one maybe two of them.   Where as I think the other two could possibly have their priorities for big business (money over people) instead of the Canadian people, and the other guy simply scares me because I think he might consider his self a warrior for christ...  to some that might not seem like a bad thing, but to me it does because they believe in the end of the world.   I don't want it to be a self fulfilling prophecy... 

This is just how I feel.  My opinion isn't worth anything.
I signed up to serve my country and that is exactly what I plan on doing.   If I have to have the exact same opinion as every other serving member I will just keep my mouth shut. smile and nod...
next time I won't share my opinion.
i will just smile and nod. 

In conclusion I just shared my gut feeling on this topic, and my opinion on the people within the panel, something that wasn't broadcast on CBC.

Don't be too thin skinned. Your opinions and gut feelings are just as good as those held by anyone else.

It is hard to communicate through a keyboard. I think Kirkhill was offering some advice as an older to younger person, nothing more. I'm much older than he and my counsel, for what little it's worth, is: think for youself. Don't be afraid to express and opinion. Equally: don't be afraid of criticism (constructive and otherwise) and learn from it if you can.

 

[aesop081]

and believe you me...you will get alot of critisism on BMQ. Your opinion, however, wont be as welcome as it is here  ;D

 

[wade.w]

I was just wondering what a "moslem" country was

It can be spelt Moslem or Muslim.  I have read papers where it was typed out as Moslem.

edit: i typed of instead of or.  (also, check back on my last post, I edited it and added another couple sentences.)

 

[aesop081]

It can be spelt Moslem or Muslim.   I have read papers where it was typed out as Moslem.

Roger that, thanks i didnt know it could be both.


I dont, however, understand this response from you to my orininal "?"

  my mistake,

*the democratically elected government of Afghanistan...

 

[wade.w]

Roger that, thanks i didnt know it could be both.


I dont, however, understand this response from you to my orininal "?"

well, aren't they both? a Moslem country as well as a democratically elected?  I figured you wanted me to say that they are democratically elected.

 

[MarkOttawa]

In the bad old days one used "Mohammetan" (else "Mohammedan"):
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/18century/topic_4/pitts.htm

Neat stuff about Islamic slavery at the link above.  See also:

Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850
http://www.amazon.ca/Captives-Britain-Empire-World-1600-1850/dp/0385721463/ref=sr_1_2/702-0026520-6262474?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192242748&sr=1-2

Then there's "Mussalman", often used by those speaking English in British India:

"The Mussulmans are not a Minority. The Mussulmans are a nation by any definition."
http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/69.html

Apparently from Turkish:
http://www.answers.com/topic/mussulman

But maybe Persian:
http://www.learn-persian.com/english/List_of_English_words_of_Persian_origin.php

Without further research I'd go for Persian since it was the court, government, and cultural language in much of India during the couple of centuries in which the British had their most prolonged exposure to Muslims.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CF_Enthusiast]

Off-topic much?

 

[Kirkhill]

Wade - that business of not being able to detect tone through the keyboard cuts both ways. 

Edward's points are well taken by both of us.

Your opinion does count.  I value it as much as anyone else's.  Just be prepared to defend a position once you take it.  Not everybody is going to agree with you.  Or me for that matter.

I am glad that you are in it for the service.  And I thank you for that.

As to the panel itself I think that the primary benefit of a panel like this is that they can speak to a variety of communities within Canada.  Individually they have got solid "followings" within particular groups of people but they are respected beyond those groups.  So if they speak collectively they will be speaking to a broad cross-section of the Country.  Hopefully in a persuasive manner. 

And that is something that a number of people, especially around this board, have been looking forward to for a very long time.

It is unfortunate but the nature of the beast today means that nobody trusts politicians, even the ones they vote for, and 40% of people are so disengaged that they can't be bothered to vote at all. On the other hand 50% of Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan and 50% don't.  Does that mean anything at election time?  What happens if the 40% that don't vote are all part of the 50% opposed to the mission.  The Pro-Mission side then wins 50-10 or about 84% of the vote.  But when the pollsters do their polling the next day they will still hear from the public that 50% of the public is against the mission even though the Government  will be touting the massive support for their policy.

The purpose of this panel is to try and reach out to those people that don't trust politicians of any stripe - so they are representative of a broad range of interests.  It actually is a good thing that the panel includes one or two members that you personally recognize and feel comfortable with.

Cheers.

And PS - I apologize for questioning your motives.  It was unworthy.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Wade
I find it interesting that his being a Christian makes you distrustful of Jake Epp. Sounds like you've been watching too many TV Evangelists. Here's the group Jake Epp belongs to:

"The Mennonites are a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons (1496-1561), though his teachings were a relatively minor influence on the group. As one of the historic peace churches, Mennonites are committed to nonviolence, nonviolent resistance/reconciliation, and pacifism."
Wikipedia

I can assure you that Mennonites are not "soldiers for Christ" in the way that you described. If anything they are mostly considered as pacifists. Christians are a very diverse lot...there is a very small minority of them who are believers in having a war so Jesus can come back...even though they are a fairly vocal and pushy bunch.
The Christian chaplains you will encounter when you get in the CF are not here to make sure you fight so that Jesus can come back either. We are here to assist everyone.
Drawn from many different faith backgrounds in the community we are here to counsel, advocate and provide support for the troops.

I think that as a group the 5 are probably broadly representative of many different groups within our community. Business, media, Liberal, conservative, female etc. they are all intelligent people who will do their homework I would think.

 

[GAP]

PM does Dion a favour
By LICIA CORBELLA
Article Link

By striking a Liberal-led, non-partisan panel to explore the future of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan Prime Minister Stephen Harper has provided beleaguered Liberal Leader Stephane Dion with a face-saving option.

Dion -- who has waffled on his support of Canada's role in Afghanistan -- has repeatedly said he would vote against the Conservative government's Oct. 16 throne speech unless Harper vowed to pull out of the war-torn country when the mission ends in February 2009.

Of course, Dion made that threat before his party's embarrassing showing in three Quebec byelections, internal party questioning of his leadership and his plunging popularity in the polls. Forcing an election now would almost certainly be political suicide for Dion.

Parliamentary pundits have been prognosticating that Harper really wants an election even though he says he doesn't. As is often the case, they are wrong. The establishment of this panel proves that Harper wants to remain PM of this minority government as long as possible.

Withdrawal of the troops is just one of four options open to the panel headed by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley.

Other options include shifting the mission to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar rather than security, move the troops to another region of Afghanistan and, to keep training Afghan troops and police to be self-sustaining.

Besides Manley, the other panel members are: Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney; Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister; Paul Tellier, a former clerk of the privy council and Pamela Wallin, a long-time broadcaster and Liberal-appointed former consul-general in New York.

Harper says once the panel reports on the best option, he wants a non-partisan, "full, open and informed" debate in Parliament.

"Whatever future path we choose in Afghanistan, it must respect the sacrifices we have made there" and "the risks of a return to chaos in Afghanistan," said Harper.

By striking this panel Harper has diminished the chance of a fall election and improved the chance for reasonable debate on this vital issue.
More on link

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I read that article this morning too GAP but I'm not sure I agree that he's doing Dion any favours. If anything he's going to show Dion up as a waffler and he's empowered his natural rival for the leadership, John Manley. Manley would actually be a worthier opponent for Harper. It's all interesting politics but I hope it's good for our mission too, I'd hate to see our fallen dishonoured by petty politicking.